RE:Dumb A$$es still talking about this failure. Scottie,
Remember this all hypothetical. But let's see,
In all due respect,
1-Disclosure and investor responsability
"Nobody said anything about the shareholders because they assumed they would get zero and nobody talked about the $590 million tax pools!" and "It is not for no reason TBE BoD started saying nothing about the tax pools in 2015 when they started the strategic alternative process for the company."
My understanding is that tax pools disclosure is mostly optional. In the case of TBE, the disclosure was there in the sedar documents/public disclosures (also in 2015 and 2016). I would submit that the disclosure was even better than the average for O+G firms. The fact that journalists wrote stories about this is perhaps not unrelated to the fact that this was common knowledge.
2-Valuation of tax pools
I would submit that perhaps you need to take a more conservative stance. Is there value in the tax pools for the purchaser is the first question. If there is value, perhaps one needs to take a NPV type of calculation as time is money. Also, in order for the pools to have value, the successor firm needs to produce taxable income (not just positive cash flow). Maybe a valuable input that you could provide would be the crude oil price necessary to result in taxable income for the successor corporation and the time frame to achieve this. Finally, this is a complex topic but the asset purchase likely results in a significant decrease of the tax pools. A valuable input that you could provide then is your estimation of the purchase price (ie enterprise value) of the firm. (note: there has to be a rational connection between your estimate and the purchase price actually agreed to by the winning purchaser)
3-Attitude
I'm fairly new to these investment forums as I am typically an individual investor doing the due diligence and taking decisions on my own. In the TBE case, what happened last August really disappointed me (not the words used initially in this sentence). It does not have to be this way. I've decided to get involved more. (for the better I hope)
You say: "It would be nice to see what HOC would offer the shareholders for the tax pools, after using the Receiver to get rid of the deb holders." and "I have a feeling the deb holders are going to be screwed again".
This be with me or get zero attitude may not be the best strategy. Let's look for a win-win. I would also submit that, given the substance of the PSA/Receivership process, you, as a shareholder, may not have the right end of the stick.
The first step is to try to make the pie as big as possible. Then, we can talk. In that respect, perhaps, actions speak louder than words. As mentioned before, if this tax pools scenario is in the works, shareholders should consider submitting (to the receiver or the Court) your own valuation estimate of the tax pools. You can do this on your own , obtain specialized counsel or other but maybe you need to remember that people reading your estimate will be financially sophisticated and will expect an estimate based on reliable inputs and a rational analysis.
Are you (or others) up to the challenge?
I will conclude by saying that the buyer is also likely sophisticated. If this tax pools option is in the cards and becomes a freak show, they can simply walk away with a satisfactory asset sale in a substantial way. This would be a negative conclusion for all involved.
Is that what we want?